Talk:Magdeburg Centuries

A fact from Magdeburg Centuries appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 June 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Magdeburg Centuries is a 1300-year history of the Catholic Church, written particularly as a criticism of the papacy?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/June.

Wikipedia

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lutheranism Low‑importance

	Magdeburg Centuries is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New translation[edit]

I changed the translation of the title around a bit as it had some grammatical flaws in it. Feedback would be nice.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Sentences like "...it is the basis of all modern church history" and "It is said that Baronius undertook his Annales Ecclesiastici purely to oppose the Magdeburg Centuriators" have NPOV problem. The use of words like "all" and "purely" may be overweighted. Majority of references are from a single source may be a problem. ppa (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this claim in the book form of a Ph.D. dissertation on a topic of church history. What you see on the page is what was in the source. If the claim was spurious, it would have been removed from the dissertation, as it was earned at one of the large government universities in France. The Centuries was the first treatment of church history written in modern historical-critical fashion that used diverse sources and pitted things against each other to attempt to arrive at what really happened. The church history books we have today derive from modern historical critical tools & owe this foundation to the Centuries.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the claims are from a reputable authoritative source, this just just an opinion of the source. We should avoid stating opinions as facts. Rather than stating directly in Wikipedia's voice, it should state as someone's opinions. And loaded words and judgemental language like 'all' and 'purely' should be avoided as well. 6 out of the 10 references are from a single source may also post some possible neutrality problems. You can have a look of WP:YESPOV.ppa (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]